5 ms·

I like how there is an assumption that any simulation we run inside even follows rules, physics, or mathematics we can comprehend. If this is actually a simulat

I like how there is an assumption that any simulation we run inside even follows rules, physics, or mathematics we can comprehend. If this is actually a simulation it's quite possible the outside world is so completely different it basically breaks everything we think we know.

kirubakaran 3y ago
I think the idea is that *if* we're in an ancestor simulation, then "they" will make the rules as close to theirs as they computationally can. Why ancestor simulation? Why else would "they" spend all those resources? Lot of IFs based on our view of their values, I know... I don't necessarily agree with this line of reasoning... just stating how I understand the argument.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  > the idea is that if* we're in an ancestor simulation, then "they" will make the rules as close to theirs as they computationally can. Why ancestor simulation? Why else would "they" spend all those resources?* This always struck me as the most WTF simulationist assumption. To the degree we simulate our ancestors, today, it’s in games. Given an infinity to ponder and simulate, it strikes me as ludicrous to assume even a significant fraction of computer power would go to ancestor simulations.
  - alwaysbeconsing 3y ago
    We're still at the very dawn of our computational age, though. There are still humans alive now who were born before digital computers. We have hardly any experience with them. It's very, very difficult to predict what we might be doing with them in a millenium or two.
    - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
      > very, very difficult to predict what we might be doing with them in a millenium or two Sure. But why that? I’m not debating that some people wouldn’t obsess over, I don’t know, their personal lineages or old military battles. But I can’t see devoting most resources backwards versus probing forward for opportunity.
- p_j_w 3y ago
  >Why else would "they" spend all those resources? Why the assumption that it takes a significant amount of their resources to run our simulation?
  - kirubakaran 3y ago
    Limits like speed of light, planck length, etc might indicate some resource constraint in the simulator
    - zabzonk 3y ago
      in the simulation, but not in the thing running the simulation
      - coldtea 3y ago
        What the parent means is that they have those limits imposed in the simulation, to make the thing running the simulation run it more efficiently (which would imply it's resource intensive to run a simulation). The same way hat if we looked at a physics simulation codebase, and notice that it uses higher granularity constants, more coarse calculations and other such limits (like moderate refresh rates), we could deduce that the programmers put those there because the simulated physics would be too costly for the CPU they run on otherwise.
        zabzonk 3y ago
        > which would imply it's resource intensive to run a simulation well, it doesn't necessarily imply that. perhaps the beings running the simulation simply wanted to experiment with things like a slower speed of light (in the simulation). or perhaps in their universe, there is no light, and they wanted to play around with the concept?
        coldtea 3y ago
        >well, it doesn't necessarily imply that It doesn't prove it, but it sure does imply it. It could also imply a few other things (like what you suggest). An observation, after all, can imply several alternative potential explanations. I'd say though that "they wanted to play around" is a weaker hypothesis than "they had performance constraints" (as one is more universally applicable, and would apply to all kinds of simulations run, whereas the other depends on a specific choice of the simulation creators). Plus we see more constraints than the "speed of light". >or perhaps in their universe, there is no light, and they wanted to play around with the concept? Btw, "speed of light" doesn't have much to do with light (it's just the example upon which the theory was made). It applies to anything massless, all kinds of electromagnetic radiation, and so on. The real meaning of "speed of light" is the speed of causation propagation, or the speed of information propagation if you wish. So unless their universe didn't have causation either, and everything happened "all at once", they'd have the same kind of limit (regardless of whether they had light).
- penteract 3y ago
  To counter that argument, if "they" live in world where computation is cheap (eg they have something like Zeno machines[1]) they may not be spending what they view as lots of resources. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeno_machine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeno_machine
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- coldtea 3y ago
  >Why else would "they" spend all those resources? We could just in a video-game style world, with mechanics (laws of physics etc) totally different to the ancestor's world. Like we often do when we make games...
- whoisstan 3y ago
  > Why else would "they" spend all those resources? Entertainment? Random Number generator? Maybe they are in the future and doing some historical analysis. Plenty of reasons to spend resources.
zmgsabst 3y ago
And yet, in Minecraft you can build devices that detect features of the underlying software — eg, the update policy, circuit cache size, and server lag. Perhaps we won’t understand the reality “out there”, but attempting to may nevertheless produce tangible benefits for us “in here”, eg, like wireless communication in Minecraft arises from detecting subtle variations in updates.
galacticaactual 3y ago
Strong agree. It's like expecting video game characters (however sentient they may eventually / theoretically become) to understand the hardware instructions that power the assembly language that is running the process within which their reality exists.
- voidfunc 3y ago
  More depressing is what happens if you do realize you're living in a simulation... You can't escape it unless the creator has the means to convert a sim to something real. You're just some shitty fake bits in a snowglobe.
  - ok_dad 3y ago
    What’s the real difference between what we think now, and if we knew for a fact we lived on a computer? Still feels real to me. I guess I would just go on with my life, what else could I do?
    - PlunderBunny 3y ago
      Exactly. To some people, it’s an excuse to act in an immoral or amoral way - those people seem to me to be the “sounds smart at first but aren’t really” type.
  - fzeroracer 3y ago
    This is one of the reasons why I hate the whole simulation argument. It doesn't make a bit or byte of difference if it's true or not. If in theory you could escape or 'abuse' the simulation there's no way for us to divine the intent that it is in fact an exploit or something intended by whatever is running the simulation. It's a thought terminator. It's a way to seem smart while not being smart at all.
    - donkeybeer 3y ago
      Its the "god made it" argument, to which the next question should be "who made god?" https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_the_creator_of_God https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_the_creator_of_Go...
akomtu 3y ago
The public thought got fixated on the VM style simulation. Consider another idea. The baseline reality is spacetime that can form any configuration with any number of space and time dimensions and everything in between. We live in the 3+1 layer, which doesn't exclude the existence of other 3+1 layers, just like one flat valley doesn't prevent the existence of other valleys. Those who know how to work with that spacetime can create arbitrary worlds, e.g. a toroidal 4+3 world. These world can be connected to each other in strange ways and transition between them may or may not be possible. Some local spacetime can be nested into bigger soacetimes with different configuration.
adamisom 3y ago
I think it's fair to say that obviously, anybody who explores 'breaking' the simulation is also aware of this and all their hopes are pinned on the admittedly infinitesemal chance that we're in a simulation that can be broken

kirubakaran 3y ago

I think the idea is that *if* we're in an ancestor simulation, then "they" will make the rules as close to theirs as they computationally can. Why ancestor simulation? Why else would "they" spend all those resources? Lot of IFs based on our view of their values, I know... I don't necessarily agree with this line of reasoning... just stating how I understand the argument.

JumpCrisscross 3y ago
> the idea is that if* we're in an ancestor simulation, then "they" will make the rules as close to theirs as they computationally can. Why ancestor simulation? Why else would "they" spend all those resources?* This always struck me as the most WTF simulationist assumption. To the degree we simulate our ancestors, today, it’s in games. Given an infinity to ponder and simulate, it strikes me as ludicrous to assume even a significant fraction of computer power would go to ancestor simulations.
- alwaysbeconsing 3y ago
  We're still at the very dawn of our computational age, though. There are still humans alive now who were born before digital computers. We have hardly any experience with them. It's very, very difficult to predict what we might be doing with them in a millenium or two.
  - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
    > very, very difficult to predict what we might be doing with them in a millenium or two Sure. But why that? I’m not debating that some people wouldn’t obsess over, I don’t know, their personal lineages or old military battles. But I can’t see devoting most resources backwards versus probing forward for opportunity.
p_j_w 3y ago
>Why else would "they" spend all those resources? Why the assumption that it takes a significant amount of their resources to run our simulation?
- kirubakaran 3y ago
  Limits like speed of light, planck length, etc might indicate some resource constraint in the simulator
  - zabzonk 3y ago
    in the simulation, but not in the thing running the simulation
    - coldtea 3y ago
      What the parent means is that they have those limits imposed in the simulation, to make the thing running the simulation run it more efficiently (which would imply it's resource intensive to run a simulation). The same way hat if we looked at a physics simulation codebase, and notice that it uses higher granularity constants, more coarse calculations and other such limits (like moderate refresh rates), we could deduce that the programmers put those there because the simulated physics would be too costly for the CPU they run on otherwise.
      - zabzonk 3y ago
        > which would imply it's resource intensive to run a simulation well, it doesn't necessarily imply that. perhaps the beings running the simulation simply wanted to experiment with things like a slower speed of light (in the simulation). or perhaps in their universe, there is no light, and they wanted to play around with the concept?
        coldtea 3y ago
        >well, it doesn't necessarily imply that It doesn't prove it, but it sure does imply it. It could also imply a few other things (like what you suggest). An observation, after all, can imply several alternative potential explanations. I'd say though that "they wanted to play around" is a weaker hypothesis than "they had performance constraints" (as one is more universally applicable, and would apply to all kinds of simulations run, whereas the other depends on a specific choice of the simulation creators). Plus we see more constraints than the "speed of light". >or perhaps in their universe, there is no light, and they wanted to play around with the concept? Btw, "speed of light" doesn't have much to do with light (it's just the example upon which the theory was made). It applies to anything massless, all kinds of electromagnetic radiation, and so on. The real meaning of "speed of light" is the speed of causation propagation, or the speed of information propagation if you wish. So unless their universe didn't have causation either, and everything happened "all at once", they'd have the same kind of limit (regardless of whether they had light).
penteract 3y ago
To counter that argument, if "they" live in world where computation is cheap (eg they have something like Zeno machines[1]) they may not be spending what they view as lots of resources. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeno_machine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeno_machine
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
coldtea 3y ago
>Why else would "they" spend all those resources? We could just in a video-game style world, with mechanics (laws of physics etc) totally different to the ancestor's world. Like we often do when we make games...
whoisstan 3y ago
> Why else would "they" spend all those resources? Entertainment? Random Number generator? Maybe they are in the future and doing some historical analysis. Plenty of reasons to spend resources.

zmgsabst 3y ago

And yet, in Minecraft you can build devices that detect features of the underlying software — eg, the update policy, circuit cache size, and server lag. Perhaps we won’t understand the reality “out there”, but attempting to may nevertheless produce tangible benefits for us “in here”, eg, like wireless communication in Minecraft arises from detecting subtle variations in updates.

galacticaactual 3y ago

Strong agree. It's like expecting video game characters (however sentient they may eventually / theoretically become) to understand the hardware instructions that power the assembly language that is running the process within which their reality exists.

voidfunc 3y ago
More depressing is what happens if you do realize you're living in a simulation... You can't escape it unless the creator has the means to convert a sim to something real. You're just some shitty fake bits in a snowglobe.
- ok_dad 3y ago
  What’s the real difference between what we think now, and if we knew for a fact we lived on a computer? Still feels real to me. I guess I would just go on with my life, what else could I do?
  - PlunderBunny 3y ago
    Exactly. To some people, it’s an excuse to act in an immoral or amoral way - those people seem to me to be the “sounds smart at first but aren’t really” type.
- fzeroracer 3y ago
  This is one of the reasons why I hate the whole simulation argument. It doesn't make a bit or byte of difference if it's true or not. If in theory you could escape or 'abuse' the simulation there's no way for us to divine the intent that it is in fact an exploit or something intended by whatever is running the simulation. It's a thought terminator. It's a way to seem smart while not being smart at all.
  - donkeybeer 3y ago
    Its the "god made it" argument, to which the next question should be "who made god?" https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_the_creator_of_God https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_the_creator_of_Go...

akomtu 3y ago

The public thought got fixated on the VM style simulation. Consider another idea. The baseline reality is spacetime that can form any configuration with any number of space and time dimensions and everything in between. We live in the 3+1 layer, which doesn't exclude the existence of other 3+1 layers, just like one flat valley doesn't prevent the existence of other valleys. Those who know how to work with that spacetime can create arbitrary worlds, e.g. a toroidal 4+3 world. These world can be connected to each other in strange ways and transition between them may or may not be possible. Some local spacetime can be nested into bigger soacetimes with different configuration.

adamisom 3y ago

I think it's fair to say that obviously, anybody who explores 'breaking' the simulation is also aware of this and all their hopes are pinned on the admittedly infinitesemal chance that we're in a simulation that can be broken